Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.
Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.
Somedays I really have to question whether such people really exist. I mean really? What do they think America is?
Edit: I mean, I get it from the people in power, they want to cozy up to that power and so they will parrot its rhetoric. So companies, lobbyists, etc., sure.
But like, regular people? With day jobs? Who function in regular society going to stores and cooking food and cleaning homes and all that? What is their actual vision of America here?
or a bot farm impersonating MAGAs and the press fall for it because nowadays no one verifies anything and X’s verification is meaningless since Elon made it so anyone who pays get one, bot or not
Cult-like behavior. Literally. “You’re with us all the way and must always back anything Dear Leader does or says. If you disagree with anything, you must be kicked out, expelled, recalled, fired, or voted out!” It’s absolutely psychotic to view the world in such zero-sum, black/white terms.
I seem to recall the right wailing about cancel culture not too long ago…
No see - it’s all about who’s doing the thing. Words are all made up anyway, there are just good guys and bad guys.
Remember how “precedent” stopped them from allowing Obama to appoint a new Supreme Court judge as a lame duck, but the same logic didn’t apply to Trump?
This is the result of normalizing the practice of religiously indoctrinating children and leaded gasoline.
Cult-like behavior.
They want a policy and they’re loudly advocating that any politicians standing in their way get removed.
The thing they’re asking for is awful. But God Damn, this is the kind of FDR/LBJ style titty twisting that any major legislation needs in order to happen in this country.
More proof the right wing does not, nor have they ever, given one flying fuck about the Constitution that they go on so much about.
It’s like they’d already been conditioned to be outraged about some other selectively-ignored sacred text…
How have I never made this connection? That’s gonna be my facepalm of the year I think…it’s so very obviously the exact same behavior.
They have only read one of the amendments all the way through and part of another one and the rest is too boring to read.
Curious which ones? I don’t think they read all of the Second. The ding-a-lings certainly never read the First and actually understand it, because they keep acting like this is a “Christian” country, when the First says I don’t have to give two shits about the chosen lifestyle of the xtian book club. Meaning I most definitely have freedom FROM religion.
One in full is the second amendment, one they read partially is the first because they know FREE SPEECH and nothing else.
They only read part of the 2A, as well, and none of the context in the rest of the document about it, either.
The whole “well regulated militia”, and who and why the militia is.
Is it wrong that I’m thankful for Amy Coney Barrett? She might be the key to stopping this madness.
they fast tracked her to the highest court in the country thinking she was properly trained to be their good little soldier
I don’t think fast tracked really covers it. That implies her career was slightly shorter than other justices. In fact, her career basically didn’t exist until she became a justice.
If we can’t have a progressive, Coney-Barrett would be a better chief justice. She seems to at least try to follow the Constitution (most of the time). Eff her for lying about RvW in her confirmation hearing, though. Eff all those guys.
She’s certainly performed better than expected. She actually seems to give a damn about the application of law in most cases.
I wonder how many of these “MAGA influencers” are just plants or bot accounts.
Too many.
But not enough.
77 million people still voted this orange shit-stain into office again. They saw what he’d done before. They saw an attempted coup. They heard all the Nazi-era rhetoric. And they thought “that’s the man for us”.
I’d say half to 75% regret their vote now
So it’s a lot less for how firmly support him. Even less for how many will actually fight for him if civil war breaks out
75 might be hesitant but the media and these influencers are still bending everything they can to sanewash it all. So only about 5 percent would likely admit they regret their vote.
Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.
Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.
THEY CAN TAKE AWAY DRINKING BEING ILLEGAL FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS… My bad. I was just confused, because that was a right once, too.
Why bother, just sign an EO. /s
Trump, “Why the /s? I’ll do it.”
He’ll do it, speaker of the house will say “well it’s not our job to amend the constitution so if he wants to we have no choice but to support it” and then the Supreme Court will back it 5-4
This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.
The text of the amendment isn’t murky at all.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
There’s no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn’t convey citizenship.
I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren’t even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.
Yeah - they’re trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it’s extremely clear to anyone that what they’re doing is illegal, so they’re trying to make it a civil suit issue.
The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.
And then they’ll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.
So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country “legally”.
No, they aren’t arguing it should be at state level, their argument is much worse, they are arguing it needs to be at the individual level. So every single person harmed would need to get their own lawyer.
Darn! Thanks for clarifying. That sucks.
The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
In that case, they can’t be deported or be charged with any crime.
And that’s why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.
Any reason to justify what they are doing.
If they aren’t bound by the law, then they aren’t illegal though. I agree that’s what they’re attempting, but the logical implication is the opposite. I would never accuse them of actually being logical though.
The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.
That’s not how it would work at all. They’d be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
I think I heard a plan to argue the amendment intended “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, though that requires a pretty huge “reading between the lines” to just invent that extra term. In such a scenario they would argue citizenship of a foreign nation by way of a parent being able to pass on that citizenship disqualifies then for US citizenship. This means that they couldn’t be left nationless even if that sketchy interpreation prevails.
But the reading of the text pretty much seems clear cut, the only way someone born in US soil could be disqualified is if the US was invaded and it was occupied to the point where US government had no practical authority, like if Japan had kicked out all the US government, judges, and law enforcement to make it clearly obvious there no jurisdiction left…
They would be without citizenship, yes, but they would also be legally outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. They could literally do anything and not get arrested. It would be like everywhere they go they’re standing on international waters.
That’s not what happens. If you’re nationless the fact is that any country may abuse you and no country will stand up for you. It’s a very powerless position to be in. To say “aha, but your laws don’t apply* is wrong (laws apply to everyone in the country except those with diplomatic immunity, which is the opposite of being stateless) and has a"sovereign citizen” flavor about it.
That’s the literal definition of jurisdiction.
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
The United States can only enforce its laws on those that are within its jurisdiction. It’s exactly the same as entering a foreign consulate or pulling over a foreign diplomat. There is literally nothing they can legally do to them.
To your point, if they ever chose to leave, they would never be allowed re-entry.
You can not just do anything if your nationless. Where are you getting this absurd idea from? At best you get stuck in an ok jail somewhere for eternity. You have NO Rights, at all, if you are nationless.
You can if you are outside of the jurisdiction of the presiding government body. You’re untouchable by the law of the land. That’s literally what jurisdiction means.
deleted by creator
These people have no issues holding multiple conflicting opinions.
deleted by creator
I wish we still lived in a country where legal arguments are still relevant.
When half the social networks, such as they were, have been decimated via illegal orders and people who don’t have legal authority are allowed to do as they please, fire who they please, and confiscate funding as they please, laws mean nothing unless you’re poor or in the “out” group.
deleted by creator
Then we should “discuss” the second amendment in another forum.
A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.
First time reading about the GOP?
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It’ll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They’d just declare BLM protests as “insurrection” and ban them from the ballot.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted for pointing this out. This is literally the flaw with the insurrection clause of yes 14th amendment and precisely why it wasn’t enforced. SC ruled that states don’t get to enforce it on their own authority, but failed to specify who does. If the amendment had specified an enforcement mechanism, there would be no need for interpretation.
The same way the minimum age limit for president is enforced.
So, by the supreme court?
Well, we’re fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado’s court ruling.
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.
I wish that were true. Not only was he not convicted of having anything to do with an insurrection, he wasn’t even charged with it. His attempt to remain in power is not the same as an attempt to overthrow the current power of the government.
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
Exactly. I’d doesn’t say convicted of participating in an insurrection. It says if you participate in an insurrection you are automatically intelligible for office unless the disability is removed by congress.
The Fifth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
The fifth amendment doesn’t apply to impeachment, nor does it in the event of ballot qualifications. Like, the 5th amendment doesn’t apply to age restrictions on holding public office.
The law says,“If you engaged in insurrection, you are ineligible to hold federal office”. Just like is says,“If you are under 35, you are ineligible to hold the office of President”.
There’s a difference between being thrown in jail without a trial and… Being barred from the highest office of the country - a position of public service.
You have a right to freedom, not to a specific job
Disqualification from holding office is not punishment for a crime. If it were, everyone under age 35 would have a 5th Amendment argument to make.
Try again.
They wouldn’t stand a chance of doing this with the states, it would cause a civil war.
They couldnt even get it past a Republican controlled vote.
They have Republicans in office that were not even born in the USA. People forget asshats like Ted Cruz.
Careful now, Rafael Edward Cruz does not want you using preferred names.
Did you just dead name Ted? The nerve!
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
She is an imposter, she’s wildly unqualified for the job, she is the least qualified judge to ever sit on the bench by a wide margin, she’s a DEI hire. Shes an imposter who absolutely in no way deserves her job but she’s not an imposter for “being skeptical” of ending birthright citizenship, I do predict she will fold like a house of cards over this and do nothing to protect birthright citizenship.
Okay, she doesn’t have to be sent to El Salvador when Empress Cortez assumes control
It’ll be a cold day in hell before they let us vote for AOC
You can’t “end” a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn’t how the law works.
It is if no one stops him. The Constitution doesn’t do anything unless people actively uphold it. So far Trump’s gotten away with so many things because no one’s actually stopping him.
I keep waiting for the American public to take a stand, but apparently they’re willing to sit there on the couch while their democracy is stripped away.
Again, we’re open to suggestions on what to do.
Armed protests going forward.
He’ll immediately declare martial law. This is bad, but that would be worse. Much worse…
Oh yeah let’s not protest in case we anger the totally rational dictator who certainly won’t declare martial law at the first sign he might lose power no matter the scenario. That would be terrible.
I wouldn’t… until after mid-terms. Because he’ll declare martial law until then.
…the sad fact is that fascists won a mostly-free-and-fair election, so i think many of us are sitting tight until midterms lest we give them ammunition to rationslise martial law; if midterm elections aren’t proprietous, though, that ammunition’s f*cking coming out…
“Don’t protest or he’ll get mad” is a self-defeating thought.
armed protests
That’s a huge difference. Please don’t use false strawman arguments. I haven’t heard “don’t protest or he’ll get mad”, here or anywhere.
More like don’t give them an excuse before the centrists wake up.
Of course, they won’t ever wake up, that’s why they’re centrists.
It’s getting close to that. Someone’s going to be armed in one of those ICE videos eventually.
I’ll follow you. I am a terrible leader.
you can tape your signs to your guns too
The thought of a clearly defined and settled case getting heard by SCOTUS is bad enough on its own. This doesn’t even coincide with any kind of real world event besides an asshole President saying, “I don’t like this rule.”
Maybe it is now.
It absolutely is now, they’re not legally challenging most of these for a reason.
So she sucks in a great many ways, but I’ve actually been surprised that Coney Barrett hasn’t been the rubber stamp i expected her to be
If it makes you feel better she basically is the rubber stamp you expected, all she did here was “show skepticism”
Of the conservative justices, she has voted the least conservative the past two years. Her skepticism may actually indicate where she’ll vote.
Maybe she’s clever enough to realize they will yank her and the other women right off the court as soon as she’s no longer necessary? Again I don’t believe she’s a good person or done an about face, but I’ll take the foxhole allies if we can get them, we kinda fucked
That’s the double edge sword of a lifetime apppintment, they are beholden to no one after getting appointed (nothing short of a 2/3 senate conviction or illegal autocoups)
She mostly cares about forcing births because of her handmaiden upbringing, so with other issues she might possibly be less in lockstep with the fascists
At first, I thought “remove this imposter” was a quote from ACB and I was like “Damn, she really woke up to this whole thing, huh?”
Every time I see verbs such as “rips” “slams” “melts down” I stop reading because I know it’s going to be hyperbole
Or “eviscerates”
With how much these terms have been used lately, they seem to have lost all the meaning behind them.
I know.
Could you imagine if any of the articles about the right wing attacking itself were in any way realistic?
lol you just waiting for the day a Supreme Court justice literally body slams someone?? Like of course it’s hyperbole, but it’s still interesting one of the DEI judges is showing skepticism, the article isn’t hyperbolic or audacious, just informative.
Don’t they KNOW the Founders EXPLICITLY Only Protected the RIGHT to SHOOT UP A SCHOOL?
Thoughts and prayers!
Does maga realize that the more they attack someone, the more they drive that person away?
The more they attack someone verbally the more threats that person will receive from their cult.
It’s not about their rage changing anyone’s mind. It’s the threats of violence that follow. Those can make people fall in line or go into hiding and either of those is a win for the oppressors.
Its a cult, they don’t care. It just leads existing cult members to isolate harder from outsiders and stay loyal.
So far it seems to be working because most politicians are apparently spineless cowards.
SOCTUS justices aren’t politicians though. You can’t primary a justice.
When the imposter is sus!
(I couldn’t resist)
I miss that game. Can’t enjoy it anymore because the kids ruined it with their constant “wHeRe?” comments and general stupidity.
If they don’t like that law, there is one path for them to change it: Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that, fuckers.
